MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024727755 · doi:10.1111/sed.12754

Alluvial architecture of mid‐channel fluvial–tidal barforms: The mesotidal Lower Columbia River, Oregon/Washington, USA

2020· article· en· W3024727755 on OpenAlexaff
E. Prokocki, Jim Best, Philip J. Ashworth, Gregory H. Sambrook Smith, Andrew Nicholas, Daniel R. Parsons, Christopher J. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsBC Innovation Council
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsFluvialGeologyAccretion (finance)GeomorphologyAlluviumPoint barHydrology (agriculture)Structural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Barforms of mesotidal to macrotidal fluvial–tidal transitions, regardless of fluvial‐discharge, are currently thought to display a sedimentary architecture dominated by tidal signatures. Due to the scarcity of observations from modern mesotidal fluvial–tidal transitions, especially those of multi‐channelled large‐rivers (mean annual discharge ≥7000 m3 s−1 and peak discharges ≥15 000 m3 s−1) with mid‐channel bars, this concept remains unproven. The present study analyses data produced by a combination of high‐resolution ground penetrating radar and coupled shallow vibracores (<5 m depth), collected from modern fluvial–tidal mid‐channel bars of the mesotidal multi‐channelled Lower Columbia River, Washington/Oregon, USA, which can experience peak discharges ≥18 000 m3 s−1. These data were used alongside time‐sequenced aerial imagery to characterize the spatio‐temporal sedimentological evolution of these barforms in singular flows or combined flows consisting of river, tidal and/or wind‐wave oscillatory, current components operating in unique fluvial–tidal transition regimes. Results indicate that ca 75% of the Lower Columbia River fluvial–tidal transition produces braid‐bars with basal to bar‐top sedimentological architectures that are indistinguishable from fluvial‐only braid‐bars recorded in the literature. Barform stratal characteristics within the fluvial–tidal transitions of mesotidal large‐rivers are therefore more likely to be dominated by downstream‐oriented currents. Furthermore, a new style of low‐angle (<5°) inclined heterolithic stratification found in bar‐top accretion‐sets within upper‐mixed tidal–fluvial regime braid‐bars is observed. This common stratification is created by combined‐flows characterized by intrabasinal wind‐wave oscillatory‐currents and bidirectional tidal‐currents. This inclined heterolithic stratification marks the initial downstream fluvial–tidal crossover point from Lower Columbia River up‐dip fully‐fluvial braid‐bar architectures, to those possessing bar‐top facies produced by the hydraulic‐sedimentation response of combined intrabasinal wind‐wave and tidal influence. When preserved, this form of mid‐channel bar inclined heterolithic stratification provides a unique sedimentological signature of multi‐channelled fluvial–tidal transitions that possess an open‐water lower basin with intrabasinal wind‐waves.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207